6 g 46 American Shipping and Ship-Building. 

Copy 1 

MEADE l 

G«nCol1 

SPEECH 



OF WISCONSIN", 

/ ) ^ 

DELIVERED 


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 


APRIL 6, 1872. 



WASHINGTON: 

F. & J. RIVES & GEO. A. BAILEY, 
REPORTERS AND PRINTERS OF THE DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 

1872. 





I 






I 



» 


>■ ... . 

• T*-/ 





f. 











f 















% 




» 





* . 

> 


* 


I 
















* 

















American Shipping and Ship-Building, 


The House having met for debate as in Committee 
of the Whole on the state of the Union— 

Mr. MITCHELL said: 

Mr. Speaker: The question of how best 
to revive the ship-building interests and ex¬ 
ternal carrying trade of the United States 
is one the correct solution of which will 
affect in a great degree both the material 
interests of our people and the standing and 
importance of this nation in the eyes of 
the other nations of the world. Our national 
pride, as well as our material interests, is 
involved in the solution of this question. 

If history has taught one lesson more plainly 
than another, it is that those nations which have 
excelled in commerce have been marked for 
the enterprise, intelligence, and general com¬ 
fort of their people, as well as for their power 
as States. 

Tyre, Carthage, Egypt, Venice, Genoa, the 
cities of the Hanseatic League, and the Dutch 
republic, with others that I might name, were 
leaders in the civilization and power of the 
world, and took the front rank in their day 
in promoting the comfort and elevation of their 
peoples, and spreading around the world the 
blessings of civilization. 

Sir Walter Raleigh was about right when 
he said that— 

“Whosoever commands the sea commands the 
trade of the world; and whosoever commands the 
trade of the world commands the riches of the world, 
and the world itself.” 

It would indeed be difficult to overestimate 
the beneficial effects of commerce, not only as 
a source of national wealth, but as giving fresh 
life to industry and invention, and inspiring 
the people who engage in it with enlarged 
views. It has well been said that a nation of 
traders can never be a nation of slaves. 

OUR SHIPPING, ITS RISE AND FALL. 

From the enterprise, energy, spirit, and 
ability of our people, and from the physical 


characteristics of the country, it would seem 
as if no nation could outstrip us in the navi¬ 
gation of the seas; and no sooner was the 
independence of the colonies achieved, than 
they began to take that advanced position in 
the world of commerce for which they were so 
clearly adapted. To show the progress they 
made in the carrying trade of the world, I 
give the tonnage of the United States every five 
years from 1790 to the present time, as 
follows: 

Total 

Tonnage. 


1790 . 274.377 

1795 . 747.964 

1800 . 972,492 

1805 . 1 , 140,368 

1810 . 1 , 424,784 

1815 . 1 , 368,127 

1820 . 1 , 280,166 

1825 . 1 , 423,110 

1830 . 1 , 191,776 

1835 . 1 , 824,940 

1840 . 2 , 180,764 

1845 . 2 , 417,002 

1850 . 3 , 535,454 

1855 . 5 , 212,001 

1860 . 5 , 353,868 

1861 . 5 . 539,813 

1865 . 5 , 096,000 

1869 . 4 , 144,000 

1870 . 3 , 946,149 


In the beginning of the present century 
everything was favorable to the prosperity 
of our shipping interests. The nations of 
Europe were embroiled in the Napoleonic 
wars, and so long as we remained at peace 
we had almost a monopoly of the carrying 
trade. Having become involved in war with 
England, we lost the great advantage arising 
from our neutral position, and the conse¬ 
quences were anything but favorable to our • 
shipping. It appears, from the foregoing 
table, that while in 1810 our tonnage was 
1,424,784, in 1830 it was but 1,191,776, so 
that in twenty years we absolutely retrograded 
in the amount of our tonnage. 

By far the most prosperous era for our ship¬ 
ping interests was from 1850 to 1860, during 


























4 


which time our shipping increased about two 
million tons. Prom 1851 to 1855 it increased 
thirty-eight and a half per cent., while that 
of England and her colonies increased only 
eighteen and three fourths per cent. These 
were the years when our ship-yards turned 
out those splendid clipper ships which defied 
the ships of all the world besides. These 
were years when in every harbor on the globe 
could be seen floating the proud banner of the 
stars and stripes. Those proud tokens of our 
people’s greatness were not placed on the 
ocean by Government subsidies wrung from 
the sinews of the toiling millions, but by the 
enterprise and skill of a free and untrammeled 
industry. In those bright days there was no 
whining about being unable, to compete with 
the pauper labor of Europe, and there were 
no complaints that our mechanics were infe¬ 
rior to those of England in this department. 
Our workmen could outstrip all competitors 
in inventive genius and mechanical skill. 

In 1859 John Bright said, in the English 
House of Commons, that— 

“The finest vessels which are at this moment per¬ 
forming the voyage between England and the Aus¬ 
tralian colonies have been built in the United 
States. In ship-building the United States not only 
compete with, but in some respects excel this coun¬ 
try,” (England.) 

In 1854 the returns of the British board of 
trade showed the remarkable fact that nearly 
sixty per cent, of the new shipping added to 
the mercantile fleet of England was the work 
of North American ship-yards, the British 
having bought from us in that year two hun¬ 
dred and sixty-seven vessels. If from 1850 to 

1860 were the brightest years in the history of 
our commerce, from 1860 to 1870 were un¬ 
doubtedly the darkest. While our tonnage in 

1861 amounted to 5,539,000, in 1865 it had 
sunk to 5,096,000, being a loss of 443,000 tons 
during the four years of war. But during the 
four years since the war it has lost more than 
twice that, or 952,000 ions, and the falling off 
still continues, showing that some other causes 
must be at work to destroy besides the rebel 
privateers. Had the rebel cruisers been the 
only destroyers of our commerce, as soon as 
the war ended, if our ship-building interests 
had been in a healthy state, our ship-yards 
should have manifested renewed activity to 
supply the places of those vessels which had 
been destroyed. Instead of that, our ship¬ 
yards are deserted, arid ship-building has 
become one of the lost arts in our land. 

It is claimed by some that the substitution 
of iron for wood has had much'to do with the 
falling off’ of our tonnage. Of the fact that 
there has been such a change there can be no 
doubt. 

According to the London Shipping Gazette, 
Britain during 1870 turned out of her various 
yards 974 vessels, with an aggregate tonnage 
of 342,706 tons. Of these 433 were steamers, 
representing a carrying power of 225,674 tons, 
and 541 sailing vessels of 117,032 tons. Four 


hundred and ninety-nine vessels, representing 
58,530 tons of measurement, were built of tim¬ 
ber, and 445 vessels of 271,760 tons were of 
iron, while 30 vessels of 12,416 tons were of 
composite manufacture. But then this large 
percentage of iron vessels is but recent; the 
increase in 1870 over the previous year in the 
construction of iron vessels as compared to 
that of wooden ones was as five to one. 

Now, I believe so great is the invention and 
versatility of genius in the American workmen 
and designers, that I have no doubt whatever, 
had our builders been left untrammeled, they 
would rapidly have accommodated themselves 
to any change required in the nature of the 
vessels, and by superior skill they would have 
soon made up for any temporary disadvantage 
arising from such a change. Our ship-builders, 
however, had no opportunity to devote them¬ 
selves to building iron vessels. About the 
time they should have commenced to do so r 
they were crushed down beneath the heavy 
and remorseless hand of ill-judged taxation. 
If not the rebel pirates, if not the change from 
wood to iron were the causes of the destruc¬ 
tion of this industry, let us see if we can dis¬ 
cover 

WHAT DESTROYED OUR SHIP-BUILDING. 

In 1867 the Secretary of the Treasury sub¬ 
mitted a report to Congress, wherein is given 
the testimony of a large number of the leading 
ship-builders as to the cause of the decline in 
our ship-building, and we find the almost 
unanimous testimony to be that it was de¬ 
stroyed by over-taxation. One builder said 
that in 1864 he built a vessel which cost 
$136,000, of which $81,000 was paid for ma¬ 
terial, $30,000 for labor, and $25,000 for taxes 
in various forms. 

In 1861, just when the new improvements 
and changes in the art of ship-building were 
being commenced, just as iron was beginning 
to displace wood, under the pretense of pro¬ 
viding revenue, Congress imposed such exor¬ 
bitant taxes on all the material needed for 
building a ship that that noble industry, once 
our greatest boast, was crushed beneath the 
load. Tens of thousands of men employed in 
the yards and marine engine works were driven 
to other occupations, and ever since our public 
men have been asking how shall we revive our 
shipping. 

HOW SHALL WE REVIVE OUR SHIP-BUILDING? 

First . I answer, let us remove the load of 
taxation which Congress has imposed and 
which Congress should remove. It has been 
said by those who ought to know that we are 
at a disadvantage of thirty per cent, when com¬ 
peting with England in the building of iron 
ships. But the tariff on the materials entering 
into our ships is more than thirty per cent., 
and there seems to be no plan so simple and 
easy as to greatly reduce or wholly remove the 
high imposts on all materials which may be 
used in ship-building. Such a reduction would 
affect the revenue of the country but a very 


* 







5 


few millions, and would be a boon of unspeak¬ 
able value in its beneficial effects. I presume 
there will come up a terrible clamor from cer¬ 
tain parties who think they are protected by 
these imposts which have ruined our shipping. 
I would ask these partiesif the time will never 
come when they will say they have had protec¬ 
tion enough, and are now willing to stand on 
their own feet and let ship-buildiug have a 
chance to revive? For eleven years now has 
ship building been sacrificed for their benefit, 
and it is high time that they were willing to 
make some concessions, for it really seems as 
it we had to ask their permission before we 
can do our duty to our shipping by repealing 
the imposts which were laid on in 1861. 

Admitting free of duty the materials used in 
ship-building can affect those industries to no 
perceptible extent, for at present the demand 
of our ship-builders for their productions is 
next to nothing, and can hardly be less when 
ship-building materials are admitted free. 
Nay, more; it is my firm belief that some 
of those industries which it is feared will be 
injured by a repeal of the duties on the mate¬ 
rials to be used in building ships will really be 
greatly benefited. Take iron, for instance. 
According to the best authorities our iron has 
a toughness and a strength and durability not 
found in British iron, and is less subject to 
oxidation. Now, I am of opinion that if the 
materials to be used in ship-building are ad¬ 
mitted free it would be more profitable for our 
builders to use American iron rather than 
the inferior British iron, even if admitted free; 
and I am convinced that our iron interests, 
instead of having anything to fear from this 
plan, would be greatly promoted. 

But the Secretary of the Treasury says the 
cost of labor and interest on capital are greater 
here than in England, and were those duties 
reduced we could not compete with that coun¬ 
try. But were not wages and interest higher 
here than in England in those years when the 
clipper ships of Donald McKay beat the world, 
and when England in one year bought two 
hundred and sixty-seven vessels of this Repub¬ 
lic? Nay, more; the rate of interest was higher 
in this country then than now, because the 
profits arising from the use of money were 
greater. So with labor; the purchasing power 
of a day’s labor was then as high as it is now 
in this country, while it was lower in England 
than at present. 

But the Secretary of the Treasury says that 
British mechanics in this department are supe¬ 
rior to ours. Is not this a most humiliating 
acknowledgment for a high Government offi¬ 
cial to make? Granting, for the sake of argu¬ 
ment, that the Secretary is correct, why are 
our mechanics inferior? Is it not because the 
same load of taxation which crushed out ship¬ 
building, crushed out also all our marine iron¬ 
works, driving, in New York city alone, twenty 
thousand men into other pursuits. Throw off 
tjiis load of taxes and create a demand for 


skilled mechanics and they will soon be forth¬ 
coming. We have them not now because they 
are not wanted. Let them be wanted and 
they will be found. 

I am proud to say that among my constitu¬ 
ents there are mechanics who can build a 
locomotive ora sleeping-car superior to any in 
the Old World—far superior, at all events, to 
any which it has been my fortune to see in 
Europe—and I do not doubt that we can soon 
find mechanics equal to the demand for the 
purposes of ship-building. It is asserted by 
some who are well informed in such matters, 
that many of the most skillful mechanics in 
the ship-pards of the Clyde are from this 
country. Will they not speedily return as 
soon as we make it for their interest to do so? 

In the report of the Secretary of the Treas¬ 
ury already mentioned, Captain Thompson, of 
Kennebunk, Maine, is credited with the fol¬ 
lowing testimony: 

“One of the most expensive materials which 
enter into the composition of a vessel is iron in its 
various forms of utility. Were the duties on im¬ 
ports of those materials which enter into the com¬ 
position of a vessel remitted, and among them the 
duties on iron, we could successfully compete with 
the British provinces in ship-building, and once 
more gain our lost supremacy on the seas. Were 
the industry once more transferred to the United 
States the labor now employed in the provinces 
would come to this country, and a large and desir¬ 
able accession to our population would ensue.” 

Captain Thompson believed that a remission 
of the duties and taxes on ship-building mate¬ 
rial is the true method of restoring the ship¬ 
building interest, and through it the great 
carrying trade of the United States. He 
wants no bounties and no favors from the 
Government, nor does he ask a remission of 
the duties and taxes on ship-building materials 
to the injury of any other interest. But if 
the whole amount of taxation to be raised is 
to be lower next year than in the past, as it 
necessarily must be, he thinks that no more 
appropriate direction in which to lower it exists 
than that indicated by the sore necessities of 
the ship-building trade. 

Donald McKay, of East Boston, says: 

“The only effectual remedy is to take off a por¬ 
tion of the whole mass of taxation. Then we could 
compete with foreign ship-builders ana more.” 

Joseph Titcombe, of Kennebunk, Maine, 
says: 

“A remission of taxes is the true remedy for the 
bad state in which this industry has fallen.” 

McKay & Aldus, o'’ East Boston, testify 
that the depression of their business is due to 
the high taxes, while Messrs. Curtis & Smith 
repeat the story, and attribute it to the same 
cause. W. W. Webb, of New York, testifies 
as follows: 

“ Reduce the present high tariff on bar and sheet- 
iron and copper, hemp and cordage, canvas, chains, 
anchors, and the general equipment of vessels, all 
of which can be done without destroying our man¬ 
ufactures, and we can again successfully compete 
with foreign-built ships and regain a portion of the 
lost trade.” 

Can we, in the face of all this, hesitate as 
















6 


to the true course to be pursued, namely, the 
easy simple one of reducing the tariff duties 
on all materials to be used in the construction 
of ships and on all ship stores? 

Secondly. To revive our shipping I would 
recommend that American citizens be allowed 
to purchase foreign-built vessels when they 
find it for their interest and profit to do so, and 
enter them on the American registry. As the 
case now stands, we cannot build ships, and 
are not allowed to buy ships, and can it be 
surprising that we have no ships? 

But, objects the Secretary of the Treasury, 
this will stimulate ship-building in England. 
I do not believe we can stimulate ship-build¬ 
ing in England any more effectually than we 
have been doing during the last ten years, and 
I am sure the measure I here propose would 
soon have the opposite effect. Multiply ship¬ 
owners among us, and we will soon multiply 
ship-builders. Ship-owners will prefer to have 
repairing done when they can under their own 
supervision, and especially when the abolition 
of the duties shall have made it equally cheap. 
The greater number of men there are among 
us owning ships, interested in ships, talking 
ships, &c., the more will our ship-building 
interests be likely to revive. What is there 
about a ship that it should be regarded by our 
law as almost a felony to buy a foreign-built 
one? Are Americans not fit to judge what 
it is safe and profitable for them to do in this 
matter, that Congress has barred such trans¬ 
actions by law ? If we have none of the profits 
arising from ship-building, at least we may be 
allowed to enjoy some of the profits of ship¬ 
owning—some of the wealth made in freights. 

I find in a report of one of the meetings of 
the National Board of Trade, held a year or 
two ago, a statement as follows in relation 
to the profits arising from ocean steamship 
navigation: In 1869 one of the lines from this 
country to a country in Europe whose citizens 
are permitted to purchase Clyde-built iron 
ships and run them to foreign ports under 
their own flag, realized a profit of £118,321, 
which was divided as follows: to depreciation, 
ten per cent.; sinking fund, ten per cent.; 
boilers renewal fund, four per cent.; directors’ 
salaries, one per cent.; divided among share¬ 
holders, fifteen per cent., on capital of 
£296,000. In addition, four per cent, was 
appropriated for interest, showing gross profits 
amounting to forty four per cent. Why should 
an American desiring to embark in such an en¬ 
terprise be denied the protection of his coun¬ 
try’s flag, and be compelled to sneak in below 
the protecting aegis of some other Power? Let 
us throw aside such petty, narrow-minded legis¬ 
lation, and adopt such as will be worthy of 
this age of progress and freedom. 

THE QUESTION OP SUBSIDIES. 

Having given what I consider the true plans 
to be adopted for the revival of our ship-build¬ 
ing, let us now examine some of the plans 
which are not worthy of adoption ; some of 


those quack remedies which will only increase 
the disease instead of curing it. 

And first it is recommended by some, among 
whom is the Secretary of the Treasury in his 
annual report, that a law should be passed 
guarantying to persons who may employ in 
the foreign trade American-built first-class 
steamships an annual payment for a period 
of five years of thirteen dollars per ton on 
vessels of two thousand tons burden. He 
further suggests that it will be wise to con¬ 
sider whether they may not be so constructed 
as to be suitable for naval purposes in case 
of war. With regard to this last suggestion 
I would say right here that if a steamship is 
built for a naval vessel it is not likely to be 
worth much as a merchantman and vice versa ; 
and it would be far more economical for the 
Government to build our men-of-war and 
make them such as shall be worthy of the 
name. It is now sixty years since we were 
at war with any naval Power, and it may be 
sixty more ere we be again. We have had 
about enough of war for one generation. If 
an attempt is made to incumber this subsidy 
question with such conditions, the vessels will 
either be never built at all, or they will be 
satisfactory neither as vessels of war or of 
peace. 

But we will proceed to the main question of 
subsidies ; and I must oppose them, firstly 
because I believe they are wrong in principle. 

I have but little faith in governmental inter¬ 
ference with the details of trade. I have no 
faith whatever in the permanent success of 
any enterprise which is led to look to the pub¬ 
lic Treasury for its support. I can see but 
little glory in adding to the taxes of forty 
million people to enable a few individuals 
to run steamships upon the ocean. Subsidies 
are more likely to be premiums on incapacity 
and laziness, and those who receive them are 
apt to care little for the wants or accommo¬ 
dation of the public. When leaning on the 
Government they are not likely to feel the 
stimulus of healthy competition. 

On the question of governmental interfer¬ 
ence with the details of trade, I will quote 
from an authority, if not any better than the 
Secretary of the Treasury, you will at least 
agree that it is equally as good as his. It was 
written by plain George S. Boutwell, before 
the cares of office had a chance to bias his 
better judgment. He says : 

“ Those who are but partially acquainted with the 
means by which favorite measures and plans are 
dignified and rendered important and finally placed 
on our statute-books must be aware that the 
general utility of them in many instances is exceed¬ 
ingly questionable. Our legislative assemblies are 
thronged by men who having some project to per¬ 
fect, are sedulous in their efforts to present it in a 
favorable aspect by those to whom is intrusted the 
delicate and important duty of making laws. To 
the efforts of such men may be attributed the num¬ 
erous laws which are of no benefit. They do not 
come declaring that such a measure will greatly 
benefit them or their friends, but with ingenious 
declarations of attachment to the public welfare. 









Trade made dependent on legislation is, therefore, 
extremely precarious and uncertain. 

“There is no business in which stability is so 
necessary to success as trade. Hence the propriety 
of separating as much as possible commerce and law. 
When left unrestricted we may infer the blessings of 
trade will be diffused as the light, the rain, and dew, 
‘vivifying all creation.’ ” 

These principles are sound, and should be 
applied to the question before us. This giving 
of subsidies is apt to open the flood-gates to 
more such raids on the Treasury, and our Gov¬ 
ernment is in danger of becoming a vast job¬ 
bing concern. Again, the greater the subsi¬ 
dies the greater the taxes of the people, and thus 
a class is raised up at the public expense who 
are interested in having the rest of the people 
heavily taxed. The petition of those who ask 
for subsidies might justly be stated as follows : 
Whereas the undersigned are anxious to run a 
steamship line between New York and Liver¬ 
pool ; and whereas we have neither the capital 
nor skill to build ships like other nations, and 
if already built we cannot compete with lines 
already in existence: therefore, we demand 
that the Government use its power to collect 
money from our neighbors to start and maintain 
us in this business, not for our own profit, but 
because it is necessary for the public good! 
Shall such a proposition be entertained for a 
moment? 

Secondly, the experience we have already 
had is such as to lead me to oppose all meas¬ 
ures of mere subsidies to special and selected 
lines or companies. 

The question of subsidies is no new one in 
the Halls of Congress. It is now a quarter 
of a century since the whole matter was dis¬ 
cussed in all its bearings, and it is remarkable 
how confident were the glowing, predictions 
which were indulged in as to the effects of 
subsidizing the Collins and Bremen lines. 

Mr. Hamlin said in the debate in 1850, on 
subsidizing the Bremen line, that— 

“ The whole question of a commercial marine 
depends on the encouragement which Congress 
shall give at this time.” 

In 1852, when the additional appropriation 
for the Collins line was up, Mr. Seward said 
that ‘ ‘ it was necessary, in order to maintain our 
commercial independence and attain the ulti¬ 
mate empire of the ocean.” 

When we think how lamentably the predic¬ 
tions of these shrewd statesmen were falsified 
in the history of the Collins line, we may well 
receive with doubt similar predictions regard¬ 
ing the effects of subsidies. 

It is true that in 1854 we did attain to the 
empire of the ocean, but it was through the 
unaided, self-supporting energy and skill of the 
builders of our clipper ships, and not through 
any subsidized companies. Still we can easily 
conceive of reasons for subsidizing the Collins 
line, which do not now exist. We then had no 
public debt, and but few taxes; now we are 
loaded with both, and it is not for us, the 
guardians of the people’s interests, to engage 


in doubtful experiments which may increase 
the burdens of the people by millions. 

Then, again, when Britain subsidized the 
Cunard, and when we a few years later, in 1847, 
subsidized the Collins line, the whole question 
of the practicability of ocean steam navigation 
was somewhat of an experiment. It is so no 
longer. What was the reason why the Collins 
line did not succeed? It was not, surely, for 
want of sufficient subsidy, for it received dur¬ 
ing the first five years $3,413,966, being more 
than the cost of its four steamers, being $33,000 
per trip, amounting to twelve per cent, annu¬ 
ally on its investment. There can be no doubt 
but that it failed because it did not depend on 
its own industry, economy, and careful man¬ 
agement for success, but felt that it had the 
Treasury of a great people behind it. Its fail¬ 
ure was humiliating to this nation, and I trust 
we will not put ourselves in a position to be 
called on to endure a like humiliation a few 
years hence by attempting to restore our ship¬ 
building through a system of subsidies. 

I have said that when the Cunard and Col¬ 
lins lines were subsidized—the one in 1840, 
and the other in 1847— the question of ocean 
steam navigation was something of an experi¬ 
ment. The ocean screw steamer was then 
almost unknown, and the old paddle-wheel 
had neither the economy, capacity, nor swift¬ 
ness of the screw. In consequence, lines of 
screw steamers now pay handsomely where 
the paddle-wheels would have lost money. It 
corroborates the position I have taken to state 
that of all the lines running between America 
and Europe the last one to adopt the screw 
and the last one to build its boats of iron was 
the subsidized Cunard company. Subsidies 
act as soporifics. 

The Inman line started in 1849, two years 
after the Collins line, and without a dollar 
of Government aid, and has gone on and 
grown rich and prosperous. For twenty years 
it has received no governmental aid, except 
what it earned fairly as its share of the 
American postages. 

The English Government pays the Cunard 
line and the Inman line $3,500 gold for each 
round trip, which does not look a large sum 
when we used to pay the Collins line $33,000 
per trip, almost ten times as much. Both 
the Cunard and the Inman line do not con¬ 
sider the amount they now receive from the 
British Government as an equivalent for the 
demands made on them, and if it were not for 
the prestige attached to carrying the mails 
they would both prefer to remain unnoticed 
by the Government. 

Britain still pays large subsidies, especially 
to lines running to her distant possessions. 
This she does from political and not commer¬ 
cial motives. It is essential for her at any 
cost to have sure communication in her own 
hands with India and Australia. 

On the Atlantic, between Europe and the 
United States, there are now no subsidized 















companies except the French line. The sums 
paid to the Cunard and Inman lines are no 
more than they earn. There are five steam¬ 
ship lines that are flourishing that never asked 
and never got a cent of subsidy. They are the 
Guion, the National, the Anchor, the Bre¬ 
men, and the White Star lines. The competi¬ 
tion between these lines is great, and freights 
are reasonable, yet forsooth it is proposed to 
tax our people to galvanize into a temporary 
existence by subsidies a few sickly creatures 
who cannot live if exposed to the free air of 
healthy competition. 

This subsidy movement is in direct antagon¬ 
ism to the principles and spirit of the age, 
and I am convinced if any such measures pass 
now, in a very few years the people will de¬ 
mand their repeal. If, which is far from 
likely, it should be found in a few years that 
this system had brought into existence several 
prosperous lines of steamers, he little under¬ 
stands the temper of the American people who 
does not see that they will clamor for the aboli¬ 
tion of a system which enables individuals to 
get rich and prosperous through money taken 
direct from the hard-earned taxes of the peo¬ 
ple. When the time of the repeal comes, then 
will the ship-builders claim remuneration. 
They will say that they invested in the stock 
and appurtenances necessary for their busi¬ 
ness, and now Government is to leave them 
without any adequate compensation. By 
adopting such subsidy measures we will be 
taking a false step from which we must 
retire, before many years, with chagrin and 
humiliation. 

The amount of subsidy recommended by 
the Secretary of the Treasury in his annual 
report was thirteen dollars per ton. Now, we 
estimate a Clyde-built mail steamer of three 
thousand tons will cost £80,000, or $387,000 
in gold, and the Secretary says it will cost us 
thirty per cent, more here. Now, thirty per 
cent, on $387,000 is $116,000 in gold, or 
$126,000 in currency. This would be the dif¬ 
ference against us on a three-thousand ton 
steamer. He proposes, however, to pay the 
builder thirteen dollars per ton for five years, 
or in all some $195,000, being $70,000 more 
than, according to his own showing, they should 
receive. He coolly proposes that more than 
one half the construction of every steamer be 
abstracted from the Treasury. Since he made 
his annual report he has seen the outrageous 
character of such a proposal, and modified it 
so far as to make the proposed subsidy ten 
dollars per ton instead of thirteen dollars, but 
the change is so small as to leave all the most 
odious features of the measure untouched. 

Is this subsidizing from the national Treas¬ 
ury to go on forever or to stop at the end of 
five years ? Will these subsidies have reduced 
wages or the price of material, or what ? As 


U \)& ouu 


far as I can see, uve years hence we will be as 
far from a revival of our shipping as ever, 
unless we remove the cause of depression, 
namely, the high taxes on ship-building ma¬ 
terial. Supposing these subsidies are voted 
from the Treasury, will we have any cheaper 
freights? Will the men who export the corn, 
wheat, pork, cotton, tobacco, and petroleum 
be at all benefited? By no means. The nine 
lines of Atlantic steamers now in operation 
have reduced freight so low that it will not 
pay for us to run a line without not only 
building the ships, but also running them after 
they are built out of the public Treasury. Thb 
western farmer and southern planter are to 
be taxed for these subsidies from which they 
will receive no benefit whatever. 

Of all the proposed measures to restore our 
commerce, I think that which proposes a dis¬ 
criminating tax against foreign-built tonnage 
entering the ports of this country would be 
the most mischievous. It would in all prob¬ 
ability be speedily followed by retaliatory 
measures from some, if not all foreign Gov¬ 
ernments; but even if that did not follow, the 
practical effect of it would be to largely reduce 
our foreign commerce and seriously injure the 
mercantile interests of the country. The for¬ 
eign ship-owner will make up for the tonnage 
tax by at once adding a like amount to his 
charge for freight. This in the first instance 
will come out of our merchants, but eventually 
out of the home producers and consumers. 
Every article we import will cost us more, and 
every article we export will bring us less. It 
will render our exports less able to compete 
in the markets of the world unless the addi¬ 
tional freight comes out of the exporter. Every 
cent added to the freight on a bushel of wheat 
will come out of the price received by the 
farmer. 

This proposal, like that of subsidies, amounts 
to nothing more or less than an additional heavy 
tax on the other industries of the country, and 
put in such a form as likely to greatly disarrange 
the commercial arrangements and calculations 
of the mercantile classes. In fine, I repeat, 
the only simple and legitimate remedy for 
Congress to apply to revive our ruined ship¬ 
ping is to reduce taxation on materials used 
for ship building, and allow our merchants to 
purchase foreign-built vessels. 

Let us not attempt to revive our commercial 
supremacy by any such temporary, unsatis¬ 
factory, short-sighted make-shifts as subsi¬ 
dies, which would build up only weak and 
ephemeral enterprises which would exhaust 
the money and temper of the people. Let us 
adopt the natural and legitimate plan of less¬ 
ening the burden of taxation under which 
this noble industry is groaning, and it will 
soon arise and once more enter the lists for 
the empire of the seas. 












